Talk:Bisexual chic

Archives

Bias in gutting / double standards[edit]

There has been apparent bias in the gutting. There are different standards for women's bisexuality than men's. Removal of the information documenting the numerous public women and the few men -post-1980 are an indication of this.

Also, the gutting removed the historical context of the question of bisexuality/ bisexual chic.Arbol25 (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information was removed because it was completely unsourced - see above for extensive discussion on this. Can you provide sources? I'm not sure what you mean regarding bias / double standard? Mdwh (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what other editors think of the restoration of the large amount of unsourced material [1]? Mdwh (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't the double standard be anymore clear?: If you practice sex with both genders and are male, it is treated as something to be ashamed of, a subject not to be addressed (Prince, Morrisey). If you practice with both and you are female, this is something done up-front without embarrassment. At worst, there is a tabloid titillation response (witness Madonna, Britney Spears). Arbol25 (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a double standard, but I'm not sure how that's related to the restoration of all of the unsourced / original research content? Mdwh (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

I'm sure that the following wasn't MEANT to be a cheap joke, but please re-read and rephrase:

Musical acts such as Elton John, Mick Jagger, Lou Reed and the androgynous David Bowie made public their experiences with other men, as did celebrities like Marlon Brando and Gore Vidal, Janis Joplin and Joan Baez. 192.85.50.1 (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:College Experimentation.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

	An image used in this article, File:College Experimentation.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bisexual chic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]